Food Additive To Avoid

Food Additive To Avoid

Being concerned about my health I always promote eating fresh. While I recognize that organic food is the best because there is no pesticide, and the products contain more vitamins and minerals because of the way they have been grown any fresh food will limit your intake of food additives.
I would also advise you to drink water and use soft-drinks only for parties which will limit your food additive intake to a more reasonable level.


On this page I decided to focus on the food additives dangerous for our health and not banned by the FDA yet. Did you know that eating less than 20 chips containing olestra could be dangerous?

You will find here the 14 most dangerous additives and their potential effects on your health. Are you sure you want to eat them without knowing or do you wish to learn "who they are" and be able to preserve yourself from their dangers?


ACESULFAME-K

Used as a sugar substitute in packet or table form, in chewing gum, dry mixes for beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatin desserts...
Tests indicate that this additive causes cancer in animals. It had been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits and dogs.Acesulfamine-K was also associated with lung tumors, breast tumors, and several forms of leukemia and chronic respiratory disease in rats studies even when less than maximum doses were given Another effect would be the stimulation of insulin secretion in a dose dependent fashion aggravating reactive hypoglycemia (low blood sugar attacks)


Artificial Colorings: Blue 1

This chemical was inadequately tested and there is a suggestion of small cancer risk.


Artificial Coloring: Blue 2

The largest study suggested but did not prove that this dye caused brain tumors in male mice.
Artificial Coloring: Green 3

A 1981 industry-sponsored study gave the hints of bladder cancer.


Artificial Coloring: Red 3

There is evidence that this dye cause thyroid tumors in rats.


Artificial Coloring: Yellow 6

It may cause allergic reactions. Also industry-sponsored animal tests shows that this dye causes tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney.


Aspartame

In some reports aspartame has been linked to various neuropsychiatric disorders, including panic attacks, mood changes,visual hallucinations, manic episodes and isolated dizziness. A 1970 study suggested that aspartame caused brain tumors in rats. In 2005, researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy, conducted a study which indicated that in rats who were first exposed to aspartame at 8 weeks of ages aspartame caused lymphomas and leukemias in females. In 2007, the same Italian researchers published a follow-up study that began exposing rats to aspartame in utero. This study found that aspartame caused leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer.


Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)

Some studies shows that it causes cancer in the forestomach of rats, mice and hamsters . Humans do not have a forestomach but a chemical that causes cancer in at least one organ in three different species indicates that it might be carcinogenic in humans.


Olestra (Olean)

Olestra has an avidity for certain fat-soluble substances and will remove fat-soluble nutrients from your body.It is linked directly to olestra being a non-absorbable lipid-like substance.
Olestra will cause a dramatic depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoids. Olestra depletion of carotenoids is a great concern because evidences indicate that they may confer important health benefit, like lowering risk of cancers (lungs, esophagus, pharynx, mouth, stomach, colon, rectum, and bladder). Olestra is highly effective at reducing serum level of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Supplementing olestra with those vitamins would not completely solve the problem which means that blood clotting, bone formation in fetal development and childhood and retention of bone in older women could be affected. A more immediat effects would be diarrhea, fecal urgency, and more frequent and looser bowel movements as well as anal leaking. Olestra gastrointestinal effects are comparable to those caused by eating larger amount of dietetary fibers except that you body will adapt to increased fibers but won't adjust to olera. The only way to stop the intestinal effect of olestra is to stop its intake. Risk of macular degeneration and possibly cancer and heart diseases are also associated with olestra.

Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil, Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Trans Fat)

Vegetable oil, usually a liquid can be made into semi-solid shortening by reacting it with hydrogen. Partial hydrogenation reduces the levels of polyunsatured oils also creating trans fats which promote heart diseases.The Institute of Medicine has advised consumers to eat less than 2 grams a day. Beware of the marking on the boxes: 0g trans fat are permitted to contain 0.5g per serving while no trans fat means none at all.


Potassium Bromate

Potassium bromate is used to strenghen bread dough. Bromate was first found to cause cancer in rats in 1982. Subsequents studies on rats and mice confirmed that it causes tumors of the kidney, thyroid and other organs. It had been banned virtually worldwide except in the US and Japan. In 1991, California declared bromate a carcerigen under the state's proposition 65. Baked good sold in California would have to bear a cancer warning if they contain more than a certain level of bromate. As a result most California bakers have switched to bromate-free processes.


Propyl Gallate

Propyl gallate or propyl 3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoate is an ester formed by the condensation of garlic acid and propanol. It is an anti oxidant added to foods containing oils and fats to prevent oxidation. As a food addictive it is used under the number E310. Recent studies show that propyl gallate mimic oestrogen similar to other xenoestrogens. This may result in male developing female traits. Increased estrogen load is often associated with increase risk of developping cancer in estrogen-sensitive tiissues such as ovary, breat, prostate...


Saccharin

Saccharin is 350 times sweeter than sugar and is used in diet foods or as a tabletop sugar substitute. Many studies on animals have shown that saccharin can cause cancer of the urinary bladder as well as cancer of the uterus, ovaries, skin, blood vessels, and other organs. Other studies have shown that saccharin increases the potency of other cancer-causing chemicals. The best epidemiology study (done by the National Cancer Institute) found that the use of artificial sweeteners (saccharin and cyclamate) was associated with a higher incidence of bladder cancer. The industry acknowledges that saccharin causes bladder cancer in male rats, but argues that those tumors are caused by a mechanism that would not occur in humans. Many public health experts respond by stating that, even if that still-unproved mechanism were correct in male rats, saccharin could cause cancer by additional mechanisms.


Sodium Nitrite, Sodium Nitrate

Sodium nitrite stabilizes the red color in cured meat (without nitrite, hot dogs and bacon would look gray) and gives a characteristic flavor. Adding nitrite to food can lead to the formation of small amounts of potent cancer-causing chemicals (nitrosamines), particularly in fried bacon. Several studies have linked consumption of cured meat and nitrite by children, pregnant women, and adults with various types of cancer. Nitrite is used primarily in fatty, salty foods, consumers have important nutritional reasons for avoiding nitrite-preserved foods.


Preserve Yourself

The best way to preserve yourself from these additive is to eliminate them from your diet. The less you will eat of them the better it will be for you. If you can't stop just try to limit your intake to the minimum possible.

Red and processed meats lower life expectancy

Red and processed meats lower life expectancy

Source

You increase your chances of dying early – and developing cancer – if there’s too much red meat and processed meats in your diet, a new study has found. And if you eat more white meat, you stand a better chance of a longer, and illness-free, life.

Researchers from the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland reckon that 11 per cent of deaths in men and 16 per cent in women are dying prematurely because they are eating too much red meat or processed meats.

In a survey of 47,976 men and 23.276 women, those in the top fifth of red meat eaters – those who daily ate 62.5 grams per 1000 calories – were far more likely to die than those in the bottom fifth, who ate 22.6 grams per 1000 calories.

Those in the top fifth who could reduce their intake to that of the bottom fifth could reduce their chances of dying from any cause by 11 per cent if male and 16 per cent if female.

Substituting red meat for white was just as good as avoiding meat altogether, the researchers found. In fact, those who had a largely white-meat diet reduced their chances of dying from any disease.

(Source: Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009; 169: 562).

Mobiles pose neurological health risks

Mobiles pose neurological health risks
Although the link between cell phones and brain tumour remains inconclusive till date, a new study has warned that the ‘technological
Using mobile phone? Beware!
Mobiles pose neurological health risks (Getty Images)
advancement’ can pose number of risks to people’s neurological health.

Recent studies have shown that cell phones increase the risk of developing a brain tumor.

Now, taking examples from real-life scenarios, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) has warned that cell phones can cause risks to people’s neurological health.

Amongst their many illustrations was the example of a 50-year-old female who had suffered nerve damage owing to extensive cell phone usage and was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy after complaining pain in her fingers and arm while holding her cell phone.

Other examples included instances such as that of a 16-year-old boy who suffered a concussion because he was texting as he walked into a telephone pole, a 29-year-old male who was talking on his cell phone while on an escalator, fell backwards, and lacerated his head.

Also, the experts further revealed that drivers distracted by cell phones were four times more likely to be in a motor vehicle accident.

The boffins have also offered several cell phone injury prevention tips.

They are: never text messaging or using a cell phone while performing any physical activities that require attention, talking hands free by using an earpiece or on speaker mode whenever possible, if your phone rings while driving, let the call go into voice mail and respond later when you are safely parked.

Source

Study Links Cell Phones To Brain Cancer Risk

Study Links Cell Phones To Brain Cancer Risk
By Dr. Mercola
Provider
2008-11-11 10:43 AM
Fonts Size: A+
E-Mail This Email
Printer-Friendly Printer
+ Enlarge This image
Concerns have been raised about whether cell phone use can be linked to the development of brain tumours. Now, a study from Swedish researchers provides evidence backing the claim.
Provider
Concerns have been raised about whether cell phone use can be linked to the development of brain tumours. Now, a study from Swedish researchers provides evidence backing the claim.

Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, based their findings on questionnaire and interview data obtained from 209 persons with brain tumours and 425 healthy control subjects. In a 2-year study, the team found an increased risk in anatomical areas of the brain exposed to microwaves during a mobile phone call. This risk holds even when statistical adjustments are made for other risk factors including ionizing radiation and laboratory exposures

The researcher pointed out, however, that most of the people in the study used the older analog system, which gives two to three times higher exposure than the digital system, which is now mostly used -- at least in Europe. Larger studies are necessary to make firm conclusions. The investigators have a much larger brain tumour study ongoing with about 1,500 incident patients and 1,500 controls and the results are expected within one year.

In light of their current findings, the authors offer several suggestions about cell phone usage. Use an earpiece to reduce exposure to the brain and, in a car, use an external fixed antenna. Otherwise, your exposure to microwaves might even be higher than using the phone outside the car. In addition, extended conversations should be conducted on a regular corded telephone.

Insofar as children are concerned, since the developing brain might be more sensitive to microwaves, children's exposure should be limited. One useful tip is to find out the specific absorption rate (SAR) value of various cell phone types. The SAR may differ by as much as a factor of 20 between different brands.

Commentary:

It is reprehensible to even consider that someone would allow a child to use a cell phone. The danger is far too great. We all need to reduce our exposure. The best way is to minimize their use to the smallest amount possible. Secondly, only use digital rather than analog phones, as the radiation dose is reduced by up to 90%. Thirdly, only use them with a head set. Please review the other articles for further information.

Source

WiFi System at Spain’s University of Baiona Cause of Students’ “Discomfort”

This story is from Spain but it has been forwarded to me from France. The translation to English is not very clear but I think we are able to understand the general meaning.

It appears that students at the University of Baiona have been complaining of headaches, breathing problems and dizziness (symptoms of microwave exposure illness). In response the University is conducting air testing. When the University WiFi system failed, persons on the campus soon noticed an improvement in their health.

It will be interesting to see whether the University management will recognize the dangers of microwave radiation and take positive action, or whether they will continue to deny that electro magnetic radiation is harmful and fail to protect students and staff.

Click here to watch the video

No Way to Hide Truth: Cell Phone Does Cause Tumor

No Way to Hide Truth: Cell Phone Does Cause Tumor
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 by: Chanyut Phrukkumwong (see all articles by this author)
Reducing Electromagnetic Frequency Exposure May Improve Your Health
(NaturalNews) Long-term exposure to electromagnetic radio waves at certain strengths does cause brain tumors. Just like in the case of cigarette smoking, which nobody realized could damage your health until the era where lung cancer caused by regular smoking showed up. Such warnings about the dangers from electromagnetic radio waves from cell phones have been around for some years now. But the reporting has not been very widespread because of the attempt to hide this truth from those who hold the stake, which is certainly the cell phone industry (manufacturers).

Dr. George Carlo is among the first scientists who warned the public about this danger. He refused a billion-dollar bribe from the cell phone industry who told him to keep quiet about the research results that he conducted. Take a look at his website, (http://www.safewireless.org) .

Other honest doctors and health advocates have helped this warning to become more widespread and more understandable by comparing such dangers with the ones associated to smoking. Everybody mistook, at first, that smoking was healthy but we have later come to know that it is dangerous.

More warnings about cell phones can be found here (http://www.naturalnews.com/cell_phone.html) .

We may notice that such warnings about the danger of cell phone is usually put out by honest doctors, health advocates, health-related people while hidden by cell phone industries or technology-related people. Until recently, this issue was mentioned about by the technology-related web site like CNET or ZD net.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/...
http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-5741203...
Even though an objection against the research finding is also there, we know that it is only a voice from cell-phone industry who has tried its best to conceal this fact and to protect itself from losing the profits. This shows that the industry itself has already realized this truth simply because there is no way to hide it.

So what’s the deal? Is it possible to stop using cell phone? No way. Cell phone has become part of our daily lives. It helps us in case of emergency or while being in the place where we need to talk and no other safe communication device is available. We should take action to minimize such risk and to be responsible for our own health. Simply be smart. Take moderate practice. Make use of it but do not let it harm us. Use headset, use handsfree feature, use it only when a wired phone is not available, do not go for a long conversation, send a message instead of talking. There are quite a number of techniques to minimize the risk.

Also, we can be selective by choosing a cell phone model that emits minimum strength of electromagnetic waves possible. Check out here http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#6.

Details about the concentration of electromagnetic waves at home noted in the following article is also of interest http://www.naturalnews.com/023307.html.

Since cell phone has become a world-wide public issue, everyone in the world uses it while its long-term use does cause some diseases, there should be a public law that helps administer the marketing, selling, and the use of cell phone the same way as on cigarettes or sports drinks. The law that enforces the labeling of warning message on every cell phone and/or cell phone shop like “Long-term use of cell phone causes cancer”, “Cell phone causes autism”, that prohibits children under the age of 15 or so (whose physical development is still not so endured as adult) to buy a cell phone is strongly encouraged.

Want more live evidence? Take a look at this now! >>> http://www.fitnesssavedmylife.com.

Cell Phone Towers, No Risks?

Experts: Cell towers don't pose health risks
JARED PABEN - THE BELLINGHAM HERALD
Add to My Yahoo! email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print
Text Size:
tool name
close
tool goes here

BELLINGHAM - Some Columbia neighborhood residents are concerned about the health risks of a proposed 100-foot cell phone tower, which would go in close to houses near Kulshan and North streets.

There's no conclusive evidence about the health impacts of the towers and whether they cause cancer, but the American Cancer Society thinks they probably don't.

"Cellular phone towers, like cellular phones themselves, are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects," according to the society. "There are some theoretical reasons why cellular phone towers would not be expected to increase cancer risk, and animal studies of (radiofrequencies) have not suggested a risk of cancer."

*
related story Bellingham residents up in arms again over proposed cell tower

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration wrote that radiofrequency exposure is much less on the ground than if you were near the tower at the height of the antenna. "In fact, ground-level exposure from such antennas is typically thousands of times less than the exposure levels recommended as safe by expert organizations," it wrote. "So exposure to nearby residents would be well within safety margins."

For more information, go to www.cancer.org. From there, click on "Environmental & Occupational Cancer Risk," then "Radiation" and "Cellular Phone Towers." The article has links to other sources of information.

Cell Phone Tower Risks

It is hard to tell who these "experts" are and what company they actually represent sometimes.

Letter: Disguises can't mask cell tower health risks

Saturday, October 4, 2008

By now, most of us have heard about the news reports of the dangers of cell phone use and link to brain tumors. Cell phone towers are no different in causing health risks.

What really disturbs me is the installation of disguised cell phone equipment on the water tower right next to the Sebastian River Middle School, technically the same as having it on the school’s roof.

It is very unhealthy to live near cell phone towers and even worse to send children to a school underneath a cell phone tower or a water tower strapped with color-matched cell antennas.

The county government is responsible for allowing cell antennas next to Sebastian River Middle School. Are they knowledgeable about the possible health risk that may result from such a decision?

I imagine the county gets several decades of monthly lease payments on the cell phone equipment, which apparently is more important than health risks of those students, teachers and surrounding residents.

Now the students at Sebastian River Middle School and the nearby residents get to drink microwaved water. There are two more water towers with cell antennas in the county: State Road 60 and 58th Avenue, and U.S. 1 and 49th Avenue.

In March 2006, parents became concerned about possible harmful radiation at Flushing’s St. Mel’s School in Queens, N.Y., from the 23 cell antennas on the roof of the school. They started a drive to have them removed. Early this year and after two years of protests, Sprint-Nextel and T-Mobile disconnected the cell antennas and terminated the 30-year lease. The lease was a way for the Catholic diocese to raise money.

City Councilman Tony Avella, D-Bayside, said, “Public schools are prohibited from erecting antennas by federal law.” �

Gary Ingwersen

Vero Beach

From:

I just wanted to share this. It's a serious threat that people fail to see or are made not to see, so I encourage people like Gary to keep doing what their doing and hopefully open the eyes of the people about dangers like this that the cell phone companies would not want people to know about!

Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

Alarming new research from Sweden on the effects of radiation raises fears that today's youngsters face an epidemic of the disease in later life

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 21 September 2008
null

Getty

The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health

* Photos enlarge

* Print Print
* Email Email

Search Search Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share

* Digg It
* del.icio.us
* Facebook
* Stumbleupon

What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A

Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates.

The study, experts say, raises fears that today's young people may suffer an "epidemic" of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.

Yet investigating dangers to the young has been omitted from a massive £3.1m British investigation of the risks of cancer from using mobile phones, launched this year, even though the official Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme – which is conducting it – admits that the issue is of the "highest priority".

Despite recommendations of an official report that the use of mobiles by children should be "minimised", the Government has done almost nothing to discourage it.

Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. They are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because – since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner – the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains.

The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health.

It sprung from a further analysis of data from one of the biggest studies carried out into the risk that the radiation causes cancer, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden. Professor Hardell told the conference – held at the Royal Society by the Radiation Research Trust – that "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma", a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system. The extra risk to young people of contracting the disease from using the cordless phone found in many homes was almost as great, at more than four times higher.

Those who started using mobiles young, he added, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness.

By contrast, people who were in their twenties before using handsets were only 50 per cent more likely to contract gliomas and just twice as likely to get acoustic neuromas.

Professor Hardell told the IoS: "This is a warning sign. It is very worrying. We should be taking precautions." He believes that children under 12 should not use mobiles except in emergencies and that teenagers should use hands-free devices or headsets and concentrate on texting. At 20 the danger diminishes because then the brain is fully developed. Indeed, he admits, the hazard to children and teenagers may be greater even than his results suggest, because the results of his study do not show the effects of their using the phones for many years. Most cancers take decades to develop, longer than mobile phones have been on the market.

The research has shown that adults who have used the handsets for more than 10 years are much more likely to get gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but he said that there was not enough data to show how such relatively long-term use would increase the risk for those who had started young.

He wants more research to be done, but the risks to children will not be studied in the MTHR study, which will follow 90,000 people in Britain. Professor David Coggon, the chairman of the programmes management committee, said they had not been included because other research was being done on young people by a study at Sweden's Kariolinska Institute.

He said: "It looks frightening to see a five-fold increase in cancer among people who started use in childhood," but he said he "would be extremely surprised" if the risk was shown to be so high once all the evidence was in.

But David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of NewYork – who also attended the conference – said: "Children are spending significant time on mobile phones. We may be facing a public health crisis in an epidemic of brain cancers as a result of mobile phone use."

In 2000 and 2005, two official inquiries under Sir William Stewart, a former government chief scientist, recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be "discouraged" and "minimised".

But almost nothing has been done, and their use by the young has more than doubled since the turn of the millennium.

From:

Cancer.gov on Risks

Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk

Key Points

* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, which is another name for radio waves (see Questions 1 and 2).
* Exposure to high levels of RF energy can heat body tissue, but RF energy exposures from cellular telephones are too low to cause significant tissue heating (see Question 2).
* Concerns have been raised that RF energy from cellular telephones may pose a cancer risk to users (see Questions 1 and 2).
* Researchers are studying tumors of the brain and central nervous system (CNS) and other sites of the head and neck because cellular telephones are held next to the head when used (see Question 5).
* Studies have not shown any consistent link between cellular telephone use and cancer, but scientists feel that additional research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn (see Questions 6 and 7).

1. Why is there concern that cellular telephones may cause cancer?

There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cellular telephones (also known as “wireless” or “mobile” telephones) may cause certain types of cancer.
* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation and is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1).

* Cellular telephone technology is relatively new and is still changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1).

* The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2007, there were more than 255 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA). This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005.

For these reasons, it is important to learn whether RF energy from cellular telephones affects human health.
2. What is RF energy and how can it affect the body?

RF energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two types: ionizing (high-frequency) and non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). RF energy is a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can pose a cancer risk at high levels of exposure. However, it is not known whether the non-ionizing radiation emitted by cellular telephones is associated with cancer risk (2).

Studies suggest that the amount of RF energy produced by cellular phones is too low to produce significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, more research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF energy has on the body and whether it poses a health danger (2).
3. How is a cellular telephone user exposed to RF energy?

A cellular telephone’s main source of RF energy is produced through its antenna. The antenna of a hand-held cellular telephone is in the handset, which is typically held against the side of the head when the telephone is in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person’s expected exposure is to RF energy. The amount of RF energy absorbed by a person decreases significantly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user. The intensity of RF energy emitted by a cellular telephone depends on the level of the signal sent to or from the nearest base station (1).

When a call is placed from a cellular telephone, a signal is sent from the antenna of the phone to the nearest base station antenna. The base station routes the call through a switching center, where the call can be transferred to another cellular telephone, another base station, or to the local land-line telephone system. The farther a cellular telephone is from the base station antenna, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. This distance determines, in part, the amount of RF energy exposure to the user.
4. What determines how much RF energy a cellular telephone user experiences?

A cellular telephone user’s level of exposure to RF energy depends on several factors, including:

• the number and duration of calls
• the amount of cellular telephone traffic at a given time
• the distance from the nearest cellular base station
• the quality of the cellular transmissions
• how far the antenna is extended
• the size of the handset
• whether or not a hands-free device is used
5. What parts of the body may be affected during cellular telephone use?

There is concern that RF energy produced by cellular phones may affect the brain and nervous system tissue in the head because hand-held cellular telephones are usually held close to the head. Researchers have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas (cancers of the brain that begin in glial cells, which surround and support the nerve cells), as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors that arise in the cells of the nerve that supplies the ear) and meningiomas (tumors that occur in the meninges, which are the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord) (1). The salivary glands also may be exposed to RF energy from cellular phones held close to the head.
6. What studies have been done and what do they show?

Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between cellular telephone use and the risk of developing brain cancer, but results from long-term studies are still limited.

Several studies have investigated the risk of developing three types of brain tumors, namely glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma. Results from the majority of these studies have found no association between hand-held cellular telephone use and the risk of brain cancer (3–8); however, some, but not all, long-term studies have suggested slightly increased risks for certain types of brain tumors (9, 10). Further evaluation of long-term exposures (more than 10 years) is needed.

A series of multinational case-control studies (comparing individuals who have a disease or condition [case subjects] with a similar group of people who do not have the disease or condition [control subjects]), collectively known as the INTERPHONE study, are being coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (11). The primary objective of these studies is to assess whether RF energy exposure from cellular telephones is associated with an increased risk of malignant or benign brain tumors and other head and neck tumors. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (12). Several reports describing data from individual countries have been published independently by researchers involved in the INTERPHONE study; however, these reports represent only a portion of the entire INTERPHONE dataset. The combined INTERPHONE analysis is underway and will provide more comprehensive and stable risk estimates than analyses from the individual countries.

Two reports published in November 2004 by researchers from individual countries that are participating in the INTERPHONE study described results of assessments of cellular telephone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. One report described a Danish case-control study that showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cellular telephone users compared with short-term users, and there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (13). The other report described a Swedish study that examined similar populations and found a slightly elevated risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cellular telephone users but not in short-term users (14).

A pooled analysis of data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom did not find relationships between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the duration of cell phone use, cumulative hours of use, or number of calls; however, the risk of a tumor on the same side of the head as the reported phone use was higher among persons who had used a cell phone for 10 years or more (9).

Other reports from the Danish and Swedish researchers who are collaborating in the INTERPHONE study investigated whether a relationship exists between cellular telephone use and the risk of meningioma or glioma. These studies from Denmark and Sweden compared individuals with meningioma or glioma with a control group of disease-free individuals and found no link between these conditions and cellular telephone use (15, 16).

Pooled analyses of data from four Nordic countries and the United Kingdom did not show overall associations between the risk of glioma or meningioma and the cumulative hours of cell phone use or the number of calls (17, 18). There was a slightly increased risk of glioma occurring on the same side of the head as the reported phone use among persons who used a cell phone for at least 10 years (17).

In an attempt to avoid the issue of biases associated with case-control studies, investigators defined a cohort of 420,095 persons in Denmark with cellular phone subscriptions and linked this roster with the Danish Cancer Registry to identify brain tumors occurring in this population (7, 8). Cellular phone use was not associated with glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among persons who had been subscribers for 10 or more years. This type of prospective study has the advantage of not having to rely on peoples’ ability to remember past cellular phone use.

Incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute have shown no increase between 1987 and 2005 in the age-adjusted incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers despite the dramatic increase in use of cellular telephones (19).

There are very few studies of the possible relationship between cell phone use and tumors other than those of the brain and central nervous system (20–23).
7. Why are the results of the studies inconsistent?

There are several reasons for the discrepancies between studies:
* Information about cellular telephone use, including the frequency of use and the duration of calls, has largely been assessed through questionnaires. The completeness and accuracy of the data collected during such interviews is dependent on the memory of the responding individuals. In case-control studies, individuals with brain tumors may remember cellular telephone use differently from healthy individuals, which can result in a problem known as recall bias.

* Cellular telephone use is relatively new (mostly since the 1990s), and cellular technology continues to change (1). Although older studies evaluated RF energy exposure from analog telephones, most cellular telephones today use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and power level than analog phones.

* The interval between exposure to a carcinogen and the clinical onset of a tumor may be many years or decades. Scientists have been unable to monitor large cohorts of cellular telephone users for the length of time it might take for brain tumors to develop (1).

* Other limitations of current epidemiologic studies on cellular telephone use and brain cancer include a lack of verifiable data regarding cumulative RF energy exposure over time (the total amount of RF energy individuals have encountered) and potential errors in the exposure information reported by study participants after individuals are diagnosed with cancer, a problem known as reporting bias (24, 25). In addition, participation rates are frequently different between case subjects and control subjects in brain tumor studies, a problem known as participation bias. Some studies have indicated greater participation by individuals diagnosed with brain tumors compared with controls, and participation rates may be related to cellular phone use.

* The use of “hands-free” wireless technology, such as Bluetooth®, is increasing and may contribute to variation in cellular phone exposures.

Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones (1).
8. Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cellular telephone use than adults?

There are currently no data on cellular telephone use and risk in children because no published studies to date have included children. Cellular telephone use is increasing rapidly in children and adolescents, and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1). In addition, children may be at greater risk because their nervous systems are still developing at the time of exposure.
9. What can cellular telephone users do to reduce their exposure to RF energy?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested some steps that cellular telephone users can take if they are concerned about potential health risks from cellular telephones:
* Reserve the use of cellular telephones for shorter conversations, or for times when a conventional phone is not available.
* Switch to a type of cellular telephone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the antenna and the head of the phone user.

Hands-free kits reduce the amount of RF energy exposure to the head because the antenna, which is the source of RF energy, is not placed against the head (2). However, most studies conducted on cellular telephone use and cancer risk have focused on hand-held models not equipped with hands-free systems because they deliver the most RF energy to the user’s head.
10. Where can I find more information about RF energy exposure?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates interstate and international communications, provides consumers with information about human exposure to RF energy from cellular telephones and other devices at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety on the Internet. This Web page includes information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cellular telephones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed into the head of a cellular telephone user. Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone.
11. What are other sources of RF energy?

The most common use of RF energy is for telecommunications (2). In the United States, cellular telephones operate in a frequency range of about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (1). In this range, the electromagnetic radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing RF energy. AM/FM radios, VHF/UHF televisions, and cordless telephones (telephones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) operate at lower radio frequencies than cellular telephones. Other sources of RF energy, including radar, satellite stations, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices, industrial equipment, and microwave ovens, operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (2).

More info here: